When it comes to the point when I work onthe TO&Es I will most definitely want input from the posters withinthe parameters I have already set up. Basically I tried, and so did Jervis and Max, to allow the Nids a free form ability to create formations. This has been tried for long enough and just creates far more problems then it solves. In short is just not worth it to expend any more effort trying to make it work.

The Ork model, which is in the runnig for ides, creates a base formation that the player can build off of to create a semi-free form formation. Most Ork players add very few variations to that theme hence creating a very Boyz Heavy Horde Army without any real restrictions. I feel the same sort of thing can be done with the Nid little bug heavy horde army without exactly copying the Ork model. This would remove the restrictions of a 2-1 ratio, and the need to try and play balance a totally free form formation. At the same time it would allow us to shove in non-little bug heavy formations, but at no discount and at a small increase in cost. this would encourage players to build the sorta army the list is supposed to represent.

The Module system is semi-free form with the Nid player first picking a Synapse module to run the swarm and then adding further modules of non-synapse creatures to the swarm. This is just a toss inthe air to give everyone an idea of what I mean so no comments on the points scales I am tossing around here....ok ....... Let us say or Nid player picks a Warrior Synapse module for 75pts to run the swarm. He then decides to take three Term Modules of five Terms per module. Because this is a little bug horde list he pays 75pts for the first module, 50pts for the second module, and 25pts for the third module. He also decides he wants to add two Trygon modules to the swarm each of two Trygons each and at 100pts each, no discount is given becasue this is a little bug horde list. All totoal the swarm ends up costing 425pts. and consists of 3xTyranid Warriors, 15xTerms, and 4xTrygons.

I hope this gives everyone some idea what direction I am heading in. Please comment on these ideas, even if you do not like them. I am also open to variations on the above, or any suggestions on improving on them.

Remember that this is further down the road, so do not espect them to be jumping into the playtest arena until AFTER I have the unit stats and special rules pretty mich ironed out. At the same time getting a good idea in what direstion we should head in this matter isn't a bad idea either.

Oh quick note, there will be NO WE spawning under my watch........period. Already been down that road twice before I am not in a hurry to try it a third time.

Cheers,
Jaldon

_________________
I know a dead parrot when I see one and I'm looking at one right now.
Tyranid AC

I am happy to work with and play test either model for list creation. Both have the benefits and downsides.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

That's pretty much exactly what I wrote up in this thread. So, obviously, I think it's a good idea - at least worth trying.

I'd go down the modular route, as proposed by neal.

You'll likely find it never worth taking bigger stuff at all if you wire in that kind of a flaw to start with.

Better to work with ratios or other formation composition constraints, rather than just making the big stuff too expensive in points to be worth taking.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I think this is probably right, I can see people taking nothing but infantry.

The problem I see with the module system is your enforcing a certain number of units per module, and thus adding a constraint.

Expanding on Jaldon's example, if Termagant modules have 5 units each then I can't have a formation of 8 Termagants. Why not?

I think the Ork model offers the most freedom in army list construction and allows people to field everything they have, whether it's 10, 17 or whatever number of units. Can I ask what problems people see with the approach?

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Is 100% freedom of list construction of paramount importance to the Tyranids...?

Personally I quite like Neal's "discount for multiples of the same thing" idea, as it could represent particular "broods" all being bred together in a large nest.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Well, the important thing is you're not putting your ego in the way and not taking it personally. That is really helpful...

Another way, some might say the "proper" way, of taking this particular criticism, is that good opponents will easily be able to min/max their armies against the monochromatic tyranid horde. By not allowing a least a viable option for shooting, opponents know they have nothing to fear from it. They can build their gun line armies and a couple of quick strike units to grab objectives on turn 3, secure in the knowledge that nothing will be shooting back.

It has nothing to do with "power list design"; if that is the case, it means you didn't balance the list out well. This is about giving people some playstyle options so they don't get bored with their army, or so that people with old armies (which, face it, are the majority of the market) can actually field them instead of going "meh, they did the normal GW thing and eradicated my troops so I have to buy more metal. I'll play something else."

And while claiming I want the bugs to do everything well is a nice strawman, it plainly has nothing to do with what I said. I said they need "viable" options. They don't need their own leman russ or land raiders or manticores or whatever, they just need some viable options to keep them interesting. If you are happy playing the same kind of game every time, good for you. Don't assume everyone else is; the lesson of this board is that not everyone shares your vision of the bugs, and you can either accept that as a good thing that could bring more players in or demand purity and drive many away.

This really is not that hard. The modular system you described above is most of the way there. The big limitation in the bug list right now is the construction elements. The models are already statted. Sometimes in 3 different ways

Considering the special rules will be coming up first the TO&E discussion, even by me, is all hypothetical. That said there is nothing wrong with us tossing it around. Basically I am open to any suggestions/ideas and will be posting my own here and there with my comments.



I was afraid the way I put it was going to cause confusion as to what I meant, a bit extreme in the numbers category, my bad Think of it based upon the Ork Horde model in which a discount is given for the bigger formations of the Barrel of Boyz formations, but no discount given to the other Non-Barrel of Boyz formations for the Nid model I am suggesting. Further the upgrades would be individual units, but no discount would be given for them, and all formations would have the option of upgrades.

This encourages players to get the Barrel of Boyz formations for the core of the army while at the same time doesn't restrict them from getting other formations, or forming an entire army out of those other formations if they want to.

Does this put across better what I meant or is everyone still confused?



Depending on how it is done. If there is too much freedom, as in the original early Nid lists, it becomes almost impossible to play balance the monster. Modules have the effect of allowng players some reasonable freedom to build their army while at the same time making it easier to play balance the list. The Ork model allows even more freedom then modules, but still places a base number of restrictions on the army making it a bit easier to play balance IF the additions bt isn't taken too far. See the above comment for the rest, which is whay I put it first.

Ok, if I have understood the proposed modular approach correctly it seems the swarms would contain both 'standard' formation options and also costs for various additional units or upgrades, and look something like this (using completely mythical values):-

1. 'tooth and claw' (or some-such-name)
   • small - 5 units = 150pts
   • medium - 10 units = 250pts
   • big - 15 units = 350pts
     • extra unit x = 25pts
     • extra unit y = 35pts
2. 'big critter' (or some-such-name')
   
   • small; medium; large
   • Additional units / upgrades and costs

So people would have a reasonable degree of freedom to vary the standard formations - and the upgrades could be used to include the 'bigger' or 'rarer' critters in exactly the same way that the Orks add Super-Stompers and characters.

Well this kind of modular approach would work for me as well as it would provide a degree of flexibility within a more structured list that many seem to desire (though given the option I still quite like the unrestricted nature of 9.2.1 where the list points costs are the only control over the army composition).

Ginger, while I do like the total freedom of the orginal Nid list, which has been that way almost from the start, it is also becoming painfully obvious to me that it also makes the list almost impossible to play balance.

It is time to try something different that restricts the list to an extent, while retaining enough flexibility to keep the army from having pure 'cookie cutter' formations.

Cheers,
Jaldon

_________________
I know a dead parrot when I see one and I'm looking at one right now.
Tyranid AC

I'd recommend looking at the list structures in the varient lists; they all provide a combination of flexibility with limitation. 9.2.1 was hugely flexible, but much too limited.

I don't think the Ork system allows more freedom than a modular formation-build like the one being discussed. It just has different kinds of flexibility.


Best bet at this for my money is the modular system.

===


I think stating that a ranged fire option is a "must have" for a viable army is an oversimplification, Mattakar. A variety of play styles are necessary for an army list, but no one particular style is absolutely necessary. There are a lot of strategic and tactical tools in the Epic rules around which a play style can be built. Each strategy has more than one counter-strategy. Ranged fire is only one. Nids can have strategic variety without having access to a ranged-fire-based option.

To use your example situation, deepstrike armies and uber-horde armies are both effective counters to gunlines. Both seem very Tyranid-like. Having access to both would require a gunline to divert resources to screening units and assault formations to cover the bases on strategy rather than gearing up to fight a one trick pony Nid list.

Of course, it's possible a viable set of alternate play styles simply aren't present at the moment. My point is that there is a difference between using that lack to argue for more variety in general and using it to argue for inclusion of one specific style.

The best method I've seen is Neal's in the other thread as there is a fair amount of freedom in the list but still providing a way to reign in rarer formations through the support mechanic while also cutting out most of the point limit restrictions. It is also directly applicable to designing any other type of variant list.

The last F_ERC Tyranid list I saw a while ago uses the Ork build method completely. The issue I had with that was the unrestricted access to the AV and light WEs. Discounting for bigger swarms is about all you can directly take from that build method.